Thanks for the added privileges, that will make editing a bit easier. While I have your attention, could I get some feedback from you on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:National_Football_League&diff=prev&oldid=956894 this] matter? I don't want to overhaul a bunch of articles without some endorsement from a contributor with more experience as a part of this community than I. [[User:JunoD|JunoD]] 00:46, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the added privileges, that will make editing a bit easier. While I have your attention, could I get some feedback from you on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:National_Football_League&diff=prev&oldid=956894 this] matter? I don't want to overhaul a bunch of articles without some endorsement from a contributor with more experience as a part of this community than I. [[User:JunoD|JunoD]] 00:46, 1 February 2012 (EST)

Good job, Andy

User:Conservative is a 2 ton weight, dragging your site down to the depths of ignorance with his nonsense. He doesn't understand the concept of a debate, no matter how many celebrities he challenges to one. He is constantly in violation of the rules, and the fact that nobody does anything to stop him merely reinforces the conclusion everyone's already made; this is not an encyclopedia, its a blog for you and your buddies to push your lunatic agenda.

Hey, guess what, Andy? The Question Evolution campaign is working! Scientists all over the country are questioning the theory of evolution daily! Of course, that is what they're PAID to do, since that is what science is, but hey, its still a victory for you!TonyPark 21:29, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Tony, you sound very bitter and angry. Cheerup. There is more to life than evolutionism. If you develop the right attitude, you will learn to adjust to world rejecting evolutionism with increasing frequency because evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.Conservative 05:29, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Block request

Mr. Schlafly, user Mike42 is an obvious liberal parodist and is in violation of Conservapedia naming policy. He should be blocked. Thanks for your time, TonyPark 13:23, 7 January 2012 (EST)

Sorry to bother you again, Mr. Schlafly, but a user named MarkN85 was unblocked just now, and his user page implies sarcastically that essay content here is on a third grade level. I believe he should be reblocked. I attempted to contact the sysop who unblocked him but I was unable to edit the talk page. Thank you for your time, TonyPark 10:55, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your suggestion, but such a comment alone by someone on his own user page would not typically justify a blocking of the account. I would not interfere with another Sysop's decision to unblock an account merely on that basis.--Andy Schlafly 13:13, 9 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know if this information is available elsewhere on the site, but can you tell me the proper procedure for reporting vandals to Sysops? I don't want to bother you on your talk page about it, but user Jukh's first and only three edits have been vandalism. Is there someone else I should report troublesome users to?TonyPark 18:40, 9 January 2012 (EST)

I just gave your account blocking privileges ... so you can directly block vandalism!--Andy Schlafly 19:50, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Elvis Presley template

Would you approve if I made an Elvis Presley template for the existing and future articles on the subject. It would include every article in Category:Elvis Presley and any related subjects. It would make navigation easier. This endeavor could bring some additional pageviews to Conservapedia; our article on the Elvis Presley phenomenon is now the fifth article that appears on the Google search for the subject, despite still being in development! search I hope I can make this. As it goes into development, I may request a few more images on the request page; User:Ed Poor was kind enough to upload the last one. Thanks!--James Wilson 14:10, 18 December 2011 (EST)

Good idea, please continue building and implementing the template as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 14:35, 18 December 2011 (EST)

It should be fine now. May I move it into mainspace and insert it in the appropriate articles? I just ask it stay unprotected so I can add more articles as I write them.--James Wilson 14:42, 18 December 2011 (EST)

A Question for You

I have been viewing this site for quite some time, and have a question for you: Why is this site so against liberals? I find references everywhere comparing nearly everything this site opposes to liberalism, but nowhere can I find the reason liberals are so bad. As far as I was concerned, "liberal" and "conservative" were just titles describing somebody's views and beliefs. However, on Conservapedia I am getting a different message all together. Please explain. previous unsigned post by user:MarcusC

If you have to ask why liberal is considered bad and conservative considered good, you haven't been paying attention to anything happening in the world.TonyPark 10:31, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Well put, Tony. Marcus, just take a look at public schools: controlled completely by liberals spending billions of dollars, and the result is millions of students unable even to read.--Andy Schlafly 15:22, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Has any research been done on factors such as spending per pupil or class size, to see if the system can be tweaked? I remember reading a claim that per-pupil spending had been proven to be utterly uncorrelated with student performance, but surely if you spend nothing you'd get nothing; maybe there's a plateau over which other factors than money tend to dominate.

I suppose I phrased my question badly, and I apologize for that. However, this is exactly what I mean. I can accept that you believe that being liberal is not the way to go, and I certainly don't support a good amount of their actions/ideals. However, I still don't understand how, to use your example, liberals controlling the school system is bad. Idiots who spend tons of money on useless positions and wouldn't recognize efficiency if it sat on them can and should be criticized. However, I can't understand how "the belief in big government, more taxes, and more personal rights" has anything to do with that. Thus, I still can't see why being liberal is the problem. I know people from both sides of the political spectrum who fit into the category I described before. I further apologize for the late response. Thank you. Marcus C 10:41, 18 January 2012 (EST)

Merry Christmas

I won't be online for the holidays, so I thought I'd pop on and wish you a merry Christmas a bit in advance. I also wanted to share this story with you--a genuine Christmas miracle. [1]

That's an inspirational story BenP! :-) Best Wishes for a blessed holiday to you & yours. Taj 16:47, 22 December 2011 (EST)

A christmas wish

My Christmas wish for Conservapedia -
I wish vandals would stop targeting this wiki. To those who do: please allow others to express their views even if they do not coincide with yours. Is it right to try to censor all ideas or thought that you don't agree with? If you want to change someone's mind or heart, polite discussion about the topic is always better. Realize that not everyone is going to agree with your point of view all the time - and it isn't right to destroy others work just because you don't agree with what they say. Taj 17:10, 22 December 2011 (EST)

It's not right to censor all ideas that you don't agree with, but I have to be honest and say that some (not all) people at Conservapedia are in no position to complain about this. --HarryPagett 17:27, 22 December 2011 (EST)

The vandals are inevitable, I am afraid. They keep on targeting. However, congratulations on the promotion!--James Wilson 17:38, 22 December 2011 (EST)

perpetuum mobile

I answered your inquiry on my stand on perpetual motion machineshere. When talking about entropy often common misconceptions about order, disorder and chaos creep in. To avoid this it is -- specially (but not only) for a layman -- often helpful to think of entropy as energy dispersal and to formulate the 2nd law as something like: "Energy spontaneously spreads out from being localized to becoming dispersed if it is not hindered from doing so."

A week ago I sent you an email (addressed to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com). I'd appreciate to get an answer. Thanks.

It's Christmas and uploading a Canadian flag is not the highest priority right now. Thanks for your patience.--Andy Schlafly 22:34, 25 December 2011 (EST)

John Hughes Public Domain Picture

Thanks for your response. This picture is believed to be in the public domain [3] May I have permission to use it?

I'm fine with it as long as it is in the public domain. I looked at your link and did not see any indication of that.--Andy Schlafly 23:44, 23 December 2011 (EST)

John Hughes Picture

This, if I may, is quite troublesome. The Wikipedia picture for the departed filmmaker Anthony Minghella was originally used by the New York Times and given proper accreditation. The first picture I submitted for approval is in the New York Times obituary for Mr. Hughes under the ownership of "Universal Pictures/Everett Collection", which would have been properly credited had I been given permission to use it. Apologies for apparently not fully understanding U.S. copy-write laws. Best regards.

SkipCaptcha

Hi Mr Schlafly, is there some requisites to gain access to the SkipCaptcha group ?--PhilipN 17:58, 25 December 2011 (EST)

That shouldn't be a problem for your account here - your account has been granted SkipCatcha privileges.--Andy Schlafly 00:04, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Thanks very much! Now I don't have to invest in a Hebrew keyboard! :)--GFitz 13:38, 26 December 2011 (EST)

Requested move

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I saw that you created the article Pete Rozell about the former NFL commissioner. The correct spelling of his name is Pete Rozelle. I found out that I don't have the rights to move the page to change the article's title. Could you move the page for me? Thanks, GregG 22:13, 25 December 2011 (EST)

Great correction! The move has been done as suggested.--Andy Schlafly 22:24, 25 December 2011 (EST)

CommonSenseReality

Kitzmiller

Hi,

I saw that you reverted my edit to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Before my edit, the article indicated that the teachers never read the statement to students in the context of a paragraph emphasizing the small size of the Dover Area School District and Dover High School. A reader of the article could mistakenly get the impression that the statement was never read to students at all rather than the full truth that the statement was read by an administrator and not by the teachers (because they alleged that it "misrepresent[ed] subject matter or curriculum"). Additionally, after further consideration, it appears that the parenthetical aside is completely out of place in a description of the defendants in the case; it would better belong in a timeline documenting the adoption and implementation of the ID policy. Let me know what you think so that the article can be improved. GregG 01:01, 31 December 2011 (EST)

No, I don't see any problems with the entry before your edit, or after mine. A statement read by an administrator is not equivalent to teachers' reading a statement. They are simply not the same, and wouldn't be influential in the same way. Administrators say things like when school will open and close; teachers speak to academic issues, which is what intelligent design is.--Andy Schlafly 01:14, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I agree that the teacher reading a statement and the administrator reading a statement are not the same. In fact, the teachers specifically emphasized that as a teacher, they could not read the statement because they claimed reading it would violate ethics rules (a claim whose validity was never tested in court). Regardless, the statement was read to students twice, by administrators, in January and June 2005 (modified).

Someone who reads the text "in fact, the statement never was read to students by teachers" will likely get the misconception that the students never heard the statement, when in fact the situation is more complicated (and could be described at length in a footnote). This misconception seems to me to be furthered by the inclusion of the aside in a paragraph describing the defendant, a small district dragged into a federal lawsuit by the ACLU to make a First Amendment test case. As I said, I think that the teacher's refusal to read the statement does belong in the article (it was in Jones's opinion), but it would be more appropriate in a section describing the creation and implementation of the Intelligent Design policy. It is certainly out of place where it is now. Failing that, I would rephrase the aside as follows:

"(in fact, the statement was never read to students by teachers, but rather by administrators)"

with your link to the MSNBC article in the aside. Let me know what you think of this proposal. GregG 01:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I might be missing something, but I don't see how the previous comment relates in any way to the proposed changes to the Kitzmiller article. It would help if Conservative elucidated the connection, as it went far over my head. GregG 14:37, 31 December 2011 (EST)

If the comment went over your head, perhaps you should create a Militant atheism and shortness article. :) Is militant atheism correlated with shortness and is militant atheism sometimes just short men's rebellion (short man's syndrome) against God? :) How tall is PZ Myers? :) Myers doesn't look very tall HERE. :)Conservative 16:16, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I am not an atheist, so please don't insinuate such. I had thought that there was some connection between your previous comment and the subject of this section, but perhaps I was mistaken and the comment was just an old-fashioned non sequitur. GregG 17:08, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Conservative's Block of JonM

Why was this user blocked? It seems to have been a mistake. Xaviery 18:15, 31 December 2011 (EST)

There was a mini vandal attack. It was an accident. I unblocked him. Conservative 18:40, 31 December 2011 (EST)

Insults

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

Hi,

I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

Excerpt: I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is gay bathhouses!

I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome, where User:Conservative asks: By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

Aschlafly, would you please stop to trim my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! AugustO 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is on this slope and has a significant case of "truth decay". If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. Conservative 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

I've been at Conseverapedia for more than three years. The tone has always been one of "assume good faith" toward anti-conservatives, but if your purpose is to wear us down with vandalism and tricks; and then to blame us for responding out of weariness, then who is to blame? Stop bullying us, and we'll treat you with the kindness you so desperately crave. Try to destroy us, and we'll draw the line. You get out of what you put into it, and it's time you liberals realized that. --Ed PoorTalk 21:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I agree, it's shameful to persecute Christians for their religion. We get enough persecution from atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians. Let's not turn on each other. AugustO, as long as you read your scripture and maintain your personal faith and commitment to Christ you should not worry about what Conservative or anybody else says. Your Christianity is defined by your personal relationship with Jesus first and foremost. Conservative, it is fair to ask the man to ask more of his church, but to bully him like this is un-Christian behavior and a detriment to our cause. We can't write articles celebrating the prevalence of Christianity and conservatism, and then cast out most Christians and conservatives.KingHanksley 02:12, 13 January 2012 (EST)

C's comment (see first extract above) seen in its full context was not faulty in tone. There was nothing personal in his critique of liberal Christianity. Perhaps you are confusing tone with content, a common error we all sometimes make.

A larger point would be that liberals all too often use complaints about tone to distract people from the actual points their opponents are making (see ad hominem).

Once again, if after 4 years of dealing with this patiently, one of our top editors loses his temper he can perhaps be forgiven when you consider the provocation.

Now, I'd like to see mutual civility reign, but that will require those who are constantly trying to undermine this project (a) to follow our simple, consistent and generous rules while they are here and (b) to stop playing victim when their rules violations are pointed out. --Ed PoorTalk 13:58, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Sorry, obviously I was mistaken to think that By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite? was a personal remark. I apologize. I was just a little bit surprised that had to discover that I am a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent: it was a heavy blow for me, as I always thought that I'm quite conservative in my convictions and beliefs.

AugustO, once you embrace Darwinism, you are a liberal. Once a church embraces Darwinism, it is the kiss of death and the church spirals downward further and further into liberalism and becomes weaker and weaker and loses more and more members. Please name me one Western World Christian body that embraced Darwinism and didn't subsequently start becoming more liberal and lose more members in the Western World. On the other hand, generally speaking conservative churches are seeing membership increases. The "liberal Christianity" body you are a part of is on the slope and they need to repent. Conservative 17:37, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Ed Poor, my issue was with the content, not just the tone. Rather than addressing AugustO's point (which was about Conservative's conduct on the website), he was attempting to discredit him based on his church. That's an association fallacy and an ad hominem attack, and there's also a bit of a straw man argument as he talked about as AugustO's position had nothing to do with defending liberal Christianity. It seems that in this case Conservative was the one trying to distract from the topic at hand.

Now, for all I know, AugustO could be one of the people "constantly trying to undermine this project," but in that case, wouldn't Conservapedia be better served by pointing this out rather than launching into invective against his supposed church? Not for politeness, but in the interest of clarity and truth. It will be easier to see that rules and fairness reign if arguments refer to the rules and stay on subject. KingHanksley 17:57, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Image upload request

Hi Andy, can you please help me with this Image upload requests ?
By the way, why is the upload group so limited ? It must be a charge for you to keep uploading pictures for others. Thanks --PhilipN 23:18, 3 January 2012 (EST)

I looked at your links, but they are not clear about whether the images are public domain. Also, note that images are typically not as educational or informative as mere words. The Bible includes no images, for example.--Andy Schlafly 23:22, 3 January 2012 (EST)

All the images in the Religion section are from Wikimedia Commons and therefore all freely usable. I believe those images are useful because they are the symbols of those religions. --PhilipN 23:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

I don't think Wikimedia Commons is entirely public domain. Your links need to include a description of any restrictions on use.

Also, just because an image is a symbol of a religion does not mean it is worth spending time on. How many of those images are in the Bible? None.--Andy Schlafly 00:26, 4 January 2012 (EST)

With all due respect, I fail to understand the bible argument. On the 14,367 images on Conservapedia, how many are in the bible ? In those images there are images about almost anything from politicians to animals and even cartoons and jokes, why would religious symbols be less important than that ? Anyway, it is useless to argue about that all day long. If uploading images and improving articles appearance is not one of the main axes of CP, could you please give me other directions ?--PhilipN 15:28, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Christianity in Japan

Thanks for not reverting me on the 6% vs. 1% thing. I'm very interested in any surge or upswing, and I hope other polls will be taken. I'm just surprised I hadn't heard anything about it before, since I've taken 1% as an article of faith these last 3 decades. --Ed PoorTalk 01:41, 4 January 2012 (EST)

Invectives

AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia homosexuality article? Conservative 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST) AugustO 09:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)

The next post was even better: "AugustO, is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5)" Conservative 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

SkipCaptcha

Suggestion

To get a truly accurate stance on the 90/10 rule the administrators keep doling out as block reasons, I suggest the special page Editcount be enabled. DynaboyJ 19:45, 13 January 2012 (EST)

That will never be done, it would defeat the purpose of the 90/10 rule. SammyP 21:33, 13 January 2012 (EST)

But it shows whether someone's stats are actually 90-10 talk-main. It recently just seems to be used as an excuse. DynaboyJ 14:29, 15 January 2012 (EST)

If you're looking for someone to block vandals...

...obviously, we have disagreed on a number of issues here; that said, I'm not a vandal, my curiosity about the site gets my eyes here on a quasi-regular basis, I know how a wiki works, and I'm not interested in trolling. You might say that user rights are a privilege to be earned and that my edit record does not warrant those rights. I am not interested in rights or privileges for their own sake; I'm offering you a regular pair of eyes to help the project deal with vandalism: when you get people writing obscenities and/or blanking dozens of pages in a single surge of vandalism, that's a sign that you don't have enough users with the ability to help stem the tide. Hope all is well, etc. ScottDG 21:37, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Your account has been given three new privileges! Thanks for suggesting the promotion.--Andy Schlafly 23:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

You could probably add my name to the same category as ScottDG, I don't really agree with much of what you say (although I do agree with much of the tenor of the site); but on the other hand I have never vandalised or trolled and I sometimes think it could be useful if I was able to block and revert obvious vandals. I'm not worried either way. --DamianJohn 23:53, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks Andy. Hope I can be of help. ScottDG 14:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)

I am relatively new here, but I have been here for more than a month, and always highly active. I am here to help, and I hope you share the same opinion of me. If you need two extra eyes, when the admins are busy, I am willing, and pleased to help out.JonM 20:38, 14 January 2012 (EST)

For your consideration

Hi Mr Schlafly. I joined this site a week back after hearing about it online (naturally). It was being mocked by liberals and I couldn't understand why. An encyclopedia from a conservative viewpoint is a marvellous concept and is much needed in a world flooded by liberal media bias.

In the time I have been following events, I have noticed your most prolific editor, User:Conservative displaying utter contempt for all other editors, which ultimately amounts to contempt for this site and you personally.

I had previously thought that such insulting and demeaning behaviour was the modus operandi of liberals and their ilk. I would like to believe that is still the case and that User:Conservative is an anomaly. Cheap insults, deception and censorship go directly against the grain of Christian values.

I hope you read and reflect on the above before this post is inevitably censored. I'm fully aware that I'll be blocked but I don't mind as I would rather use my time in genuine Christian and conservative arenas.

StewMcP, "utter contempt for all editors"? True conservatives generally make conservative claims that they can support. I notice you did not do that. Why don't ask User: Anupam, creator of one of Conservapedia's finest articles the Militant atheism article, if I have ever shown contempt for him and if I have supported his editing efforts. Feel free to ask User: Karajou if he will support your extravagant claim as well. I suggest being less extravagant in your claims against other editors in the future if you want to be taken seriously. Conservative 05:05, 14 January 2012 (EST)

How can I cite examples where user contributions have been deleted and their very existence expunged? This is a Stalinist nighmare! --StewMcP 08:23, 14 January 2012 (EST)

I knew you were a poser Christian conservative and not the real McCoy. Thanks for once again confirming this matter. Conservative 09:05, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Poser? I don't follow but I understand that I am now under attack. With all respect, I really don't want to engage with with you. I was addressing the site owner. --StewMcP 09:23, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the new rights, Andy

I will say that I am not really likely to use the blokc that much. I did not join in order to become a blokcing rights holder. I will probably just continue much as I have up to now for a while, but thank you anyway. David. Davidspencer 02:46, 15 January 2012 (EST)

A suggestion inspired by today's vandalism spree

I saw this afternoon's massive vandalism spree by several accounts. Unfortunately, I was only able to make one undo, since the wiki switched to night editing mode and I was unable to do any further reversions. I would respectfully suggest that when the wiki has to be locked down due to a mass scale vandalism attack, that editing be allowed for autoconfirmed users (accounts with 10+ edits and that are at least 4 days old) and users who have the night editing permission. This would put an emergency stop to a massive vandalism attack while causing the least amount of collateral damage to contributors and allowing all users who notice the vandalism spree to help in making reverts to ensure that the quality of the encyclopedia is restored within minutes. GregG 19:40, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for granting the SkipCaptcha right. It will help when I undo vandalism that removes references from the page. GregG 20:41, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Request to restore my pages

Andy:

Thank you for removing my block. I wonder if you could also restore my user and talk pages. I don't have copies. I'm quite sure there is nothing offensive on either of them. In particular, there was a "statement of principle" at the bottom about the educational level of mathematics articles---I want people to avoid showing off. It was fairly strongly worded, but I don't remember its exact content. I consider it important, because it shows that I am in full agreement with Ed Poor on this.

To refresh your memory, I have never vandalized or harmed Conservapedia.

Night editing

Mr Schlafly, as suggested earlier by GregG, I believe changing the night editing policy would be of great use:

We would be allowed to revert vandalism done just before the night editing block (it happens quite often)

We would be able to continue editing (I am not in U.S. and it is kind of my favorite editing time)

As suggested, it would be nice allow it to autoconfirmed users and users who have the night editing permission, or some other policy if you come with something better. Thanks for your time. --PhilipN 23:57, 18 January 2012 (EST)

Agreed. There was a rash of vandalism that I tried to undo earlier only to realize that I could not fix due to night editing. Ayzmo :) 00:09, 19 January 2012 (EST)

At 22:22 Tilejoin started vandalism. I was able to block him at 22:24 but could not revert the vandalism due to night editing. Vandalism was reverted at 23:26 by Joaquín Martínez (1 hour later !)--PhilipN 00:12, 19 January 2012 (EST)

Again tonight: vandalism happened at 22:00 (apparently vandals know when to strike!). I blocked the vandal 2min later but could not revert vandalism due to night edit policy. Half of the vandalism was reverted 1 hour later at 22h55 by SharonW then the other half by Joaquín Martínez at 02:59, 5 hours later ! --PhilipN 22:17, 19 January 2012 (EST)

Yes, I tried to revert the vandalism, but halfway through, admin-only editing went into effect. It would be nice if a notice was posted on the front page when only admins can edit, with an approximate time of when editing will be reopened. --SharonW 22:34, 19 January 2012 (EST)

Yes, for example, that Newt asked his ex-wife to sign divorce papers "on her death bed". Seems it took FactCheck.org more than 13 years to get this correct (his ex-wife is still alive). All sources regarding Gingrich need to be vettted with extraordinary care given the record. The MSM has allowed this single smear to exist for more than a decade already. Rob Smith 00:05, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Funny, Rob, you're the only one who is trying to insert the smear about his wife and the deathbed. Why is that? --SharonW 01:57, 23 January 2012 (EST)

This is not "thy unvetted smears" from liberals, this is referenced content added by User:SharonW, a Conservapedian since 2009. Why would you hide Gingrich personal life while exhibiting Obama's or Clinton's ? Is ScottDG right ? "Because liberals" ? And what about Freedom of speech ?--PhilipN 00:50, 23 January 2012 (EST)

SharonW was citing sealed documents which may have been obtained by CNN illegally. how does a news organization obtain documents which a court has ordered to be sealed? Rob Smith 01:25, 23 January 2012 (EST)

The files weren't sealed. Here's a quote: "After initially being told that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk's drawer. Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN his deputy took Gingrich's file out of the public records room around 1994, "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention," because Skinner feared tampering and theft.[4]. (Emphasis mine). Do try to give the whole story, Rob. --SharonW 01:57, 23 January 2012 (EST)

After the 1994 elections, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, the Clinton administration ran an alleged dirt-digging operation out of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff, says Gary Aldrich, a former senior FBI special agent on White House duty at the time. "They hired upwards of 36 lawyers to staff the operation to handle 40 different cases," Aldrich tells Insight. "Once it became known that they had such an operation, then the blackmail itself took place'." It all came in handy when the House impeached President Clinton. "People like [James] Carville and [George] Stephanopoulos said in the media that there would be a `scorched-earth policy' and that everyone who had skeletons in their closet would be exposed' if they didn't back off the impeachment policy"

Sounds illegal to me, not unlike the hit job low level civil servants were disciplined for in the Joe the Plumber case. Now CNN can argue their aquiring and possession was not illegal, such as the New York Times did in the Pentagon Papers case, but these are personal documents not vital to national security, and their only motive for publishing is to do harm to an individual. Even Wikipedia cautions against that. Further, the documents are far from complete, which gives an extremenly one-sided and biased picture. Rob Smith 02:16, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Could someone remove the claim that Gingrich is an orphan? He fits the definition as well as Obama does. AugustO 02:03, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Gingrich fits the definition of orphan used by UNICEF [5]; the US Census Bureau may use a similiar definition. Rob Smith 02:28, 23 January 2012 (EST)

That's nonsense: UNICEF and global partners define an orphan as a child who has lost one or both parents.

Gingrich was abandoned by his biological father, the father Newton Searles McPherson didn't die until 1970, when Gingrich wasn't a child anymore...

As he was adopted by his step-father, he lived in a complete family and was no orphan even in the sense of the UNICEF any longer.

Since when trumps the UNICEF definition the definitions which are generally used in the U.S.?

(a) Yes, Obama is an orphan; (b) Gingrich was an orphan until the time he was adopted by his setpfather, which most probably means he was born an orphan. This emphasizes the earlier point about all biographical material, and most importantly, sources being carefully vetted. And we have enough evidence already that simply the claim, "mainstream source", is not good enough, in this particular case, given the documented records of The Washington Post, CNN, ABC, and Time magazine vis-a-vis Newt Gingrich. Rob Smith 13:14, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Then so is Bill Clinton, who's biological father died before he was born. To paraphrase you: The fact an orphan rises to the highest office in the United States would be of more interest than the marital troubles intended as an obvious attack on his character should have precedence, at least in website written from a conservative viewpoint.

Face it, your definition is nearly meaningless, and the conclusions which you draw from it are somewhat ludicrous.

Nah, you've actually made my point: Gingrich is worthy of the same sympathy as Clinton & Obama were, coming from similar backgrounds and overcoming similiar difficulties, rather than the meanspirited, undeserved attacks. Rob Smith 14:50, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Rob, I suggest you update the definition of the CP page Orphan which does not suit "your" definition. Beside, I suggest you update pages of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to add this important piece of information.--PhilipN 15:28, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Skipcaptcha

I was wondering if it would be possible to gain skipcaptcha rights. I believe that my edits have warranted such a change and I hope you'd agree. Thank you. Ayzmo :) 16:28, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Andy, do you think that Newt Gingrich is an orphan?

Andy, do you think that Conservapedia is correct in calling Newt Gingrich an orphan? A one-word answer is all I am asking you for. Also, as this point is being debated elsewhere on the wiki, I would appreciate the community not dragging that debate into this section -- leave it for Andy to leave his take on the question. Thanks. ScottDG 00:30, 25 January 2012 (EST)

If it is so stupid, then there should be stronger evidence against it than "Why does nobody else?" It should be obvious by now that Conservapedia does not merely follow everyone else.--Andy Schlafly 23:29, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Newt Gingrich has never referred to himself as an orphan, nor are there any sources which refer to him as such. In a speech for the Orphan Foundation of America, congratulating the winners of a scholarship program, he makes no mention of his own orphan status. Although his father abandoned his mother shortly after his conception, that is to say a few days after the marriage and 9 months before Gingrich's birth, he was adopted by his mother's new husband when he was three. His biological father did not die until Gingrich was 27, and his adopted father and mother died when he was 53 and 60 years old, respectively. I am sure that Gingrich and his family would not appreciate his being characterized as an orphan. RachelW 23:38, 25 January 2012 (EST)

Could it be that Newt grew up learning to downplay his status? It must have been difficult for him.--Andy Schlafly 23:52, 25 January 2012 (EST)

His status as that special kind of orphan who has two living parents until he's in his early 50s? I can only imagine how hard it is for a man to have his mother ripped away from him half a decade before he starts collecting social security. That status? ScottDGTalkIs Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 23:58, 25 January 2012 (EST)

As per my edit comment on the [Orphan] article, the definition of orphan that we are using on the site, that of a child with no living parents/no parents to take care of them, excludes Gingrich, who has had at least one parent since birth, and two since he was three years old. Newt's situation, unfortunately, is very common here in America, where 50% of marriages fail before the ten-year mark. If the father leaving the mother makes a child an orphan, then indeed more than half of the children in this country might be considered orphans. Gingrich certainly did not have to deal with the same challenges that the orphans he addressed at the Orphan Foundation of America had to deal with, and he congratulates the children on not relying on government programs to make them independent once they left the system. Gingrich was blessed to have a good mother and a strong military man for a step father.RachelW 00:01, 26 January 2012 (EST)

(EC)*his father abandoned his mother shortly after his conception, that is to say a few days after the marriage and 9 months before Gingrich's birth

Rachel, Do you have a source for this information? PBS says he was abandoned at age 3. Let's re-emphasize -- all biographical information about Gingrich must be carefully vetted, given the record over three decades of mainstream media sources publishing false personal information about him. FactCheck.org did not set the record straight that Gingerich's first wife was still ALIVE until December 2, 2011, when the original smear first apeared in 1984 and has been repeated routinely again and again and again for nearly thirty years by mainstream sources.

Either way, even if his mother remarried two days after his biological father abandoned him, he was ophaned as a child, by any definition. Rob Smith 00:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Growing up with a mother and a stepfather who are around for half a century plus and whom your kids presumably call "Grandma" and "Grandpa" means you're an orphan? That's hilarious. ScottDGTalkIs Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? 00:08, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Rob, Newt Gingrich is not an orphan. Not according to the definition of orphan on this site, at least. Perhaps you are using the UN definition of orphan, which includes children who have lost one parent. Newt did not lose any parents until he was 27. Rob, what other words do you allow the UN to define for you, contrary to common sense and common usage?RachelW 00:10, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Being orphaned does not mean the death of a parent. It means losing a parent. Rob Smith 00:15, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Rob, you haven't changed the CP article Orphan yet. It says that "An orphan is a child who has lost or been abandoned by both parents"--PhilipN 21:05, 26 January 2012 (EST)

I actually have a possible compromise on this issue. Instead of using the word "orphan," which almost everyone assumes to mean a child with two deceased parents, why not simply add a section to the article on his family background, including his father's leaving the family and his stepfather's adoption of him 3 years later? I think that RobS's point is that Gingrich had a less than ideal family situation in his early childhood, which is certainly true. By being more specific as to what that situation was, we allow the reader to make their own judgments about his background and what effect it had on him. After all, the best of the public should be allowed to judge his background for themselves. The word "orphan" is a distraction, and should be left out of the article unless a source for the appellation can be cited. RachelW 00:18, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Yah, but then we're forced to use PBS as a source for biograhical information on Newt Gingrich. That, is a serious problem. Rob Smith 00:24, 26 January 2012 (EST)

I'm sure you can find a better source on Gingrich's biographical information. Besides, if PBS got something wrong on the most basic facts of who he was raised by, I'm sure Gingrich would have come down on them like a ton of lead bricks. Perhaps you can find a source for PBS's botching of his biographical detais, if such a source exists and such a botching did occur. We can't assume everything PBS says is automatically wrong. RachelW 00:33, 26 January 2012 (EST)

In this article he refers to Robert Gingrich, who died in 1996, as his "father," and he also refers to his at the time still-living mother in the article as well.

Question: If Newt Gingrich were to come here and see himself referred to as an orphan, do you think he would agree with that assertion, seeing as he held his veteran stepfather in such high regard? If he were to edit his article to remove the information, would you change it back? Don't you think that is disrespectful to the soldier who took young Newt under his wing and gave him his last name?RachelW 01:13, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Also, since the PBS story Rob cited appears to be a long interview with Gingrich himself, I think that it is a reliable source, at least for basic facts about his life. Mr. Schlafly, would you please help us end this debate? It would appear that RobS is the only source on the internet for the claim that Gingrich is an orphan. He does not fit the definition of orphan given on this website, nor does he fit the strange definition given by the UN that Rob seems to want to use. I am worried that if we allow Newt Gingrich to be called an orphan simply because his biological parents divorced when he was 3, we will have to add that information to the articles of everyone with a similar situation. As I said before, in a country where 50% of marriages fail before ten years, this would confer orphan status on more than half of the children in the country, rendering the word somewhat meaningless. RachelW 08:32, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Time magazine declared Gingrich Man of the Year, put a photo of him unshaven on the cover and declared him "obnoxious" in the opening sentence of their interview with him. So the fact Gingrich consented to an interview or received an "honor" from a manistream source, makes what they print about him true and factually accurate, correct? Rob Smith 08:39, 26 January 2012 (EST)

I review those links, too. But remember, if Newt Gingrich's biological father, who died when Gingrich was 57, abandoned Gingrich at age 3, making the claim "Gingrich was orphaned as a child" still would factually accurate. Rob Smith 08:39, 26 January 2012 (EST)

On this website, the definition of an [Orphan] is a child whose both parents have either died or abandoned him. This is the widely accepted definition used in common parlance, and in the Bible. Gingrich does not fit this definition. You are literally the only source in the world to refer to him as an orphan. I have found several sources to back up what I have been saying, please by all means find a source which actually refers to Newt Gingrich as an orphan. Until then, you are simply being stubborn for the sake of winning an argument, at the expense of the reliability of this website.RachelW 09:18, 26 January 2012 (EST)

So, you've backed off your position Gingrich was abandoned by his birth-father before he was born (interesting question: if a biological father abandons a child before birth, why is he called a "birth father"?) and post dated it 3 years based on the PBS cite. Two questions: (1) do you just make this stuff up about Ginbgrich's biological details? and (2) is there a cite to corroborate PBS? And of course, a cite to corroborated PBS would need to be reliable, not just mainstream.

This discussion raises another interesting point: Barack Hussein Obama's early origins on several point were not discussed, or glossed over by mainstream media sources during the year he ran for president. And I am not simply refering to birtherism. Jerome Corsi, and others, pointed out several blatant falsehoods, distortions, and exaggerations Obama himself, and others, propounded about Obama's biographical details. Why is this point about Obama Gingrich so distressing? I've already conceded that "abandoned" is more accurate than "orphaned", yet rather than forge concensus and ask to lift the page protect, you've gone on a holy jihad, and others have been enlisted to emply ridicule against anyone who oppose your agenda. You've taken the case to the site owner, for an argument you've essentially won. Now you wonder why you and your agenda meet resistance when simple cooperation would serve better. What is the real point you wish to make? Rob Smith 21:03, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Conclusion to Gingrich Orphan Debate

Rob, I'm glad that you've finally conceded the argument. Now we can get to the task of removing demonstrably incorrect information from the article and replacing it with reliable, informative content. Hopefully, it won't take such a long, torturous debate next time. Mr. Schlafly, could you please lift the page lock so that we can add correct biographical information to Mr. Gingrich's article? RachelW 14:28, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Yes. Might I suggest User:RobSmith/Newt Gingrich and talk page be a place we can begin collaboration; our finished product then can be presented to a sysop with an unlock request without wasting anybody else time further. Thanks. Rob Smith 15:33, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Conservative, can the Newt Gingrich be re-locked so as to avoid endless arguments and editing warring over minor details, as has occurred. Thank you. Rob Smith 15:48, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Rob, we are not here to engage in endless debate. I have altered the article to reflect the accurate information. Expand it if you like, but its not a terribly important detail in the article. RachelW 16:15, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Given the fast breaking nature of the GOP presidential primary race, I don't think it is a good time to protect the article unless it proves necessary to do so. Conservative 16:33, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Well, it was locked for a reason in the first place. Given the fast breaking nature of vandals, can the site owners action be redone, until such a time as the requesting editor can agree with collaborators on language. Unlocking it now only encourages more pointless vandalism. Good faith editors do not have hours and days to continue pointless edit warring. Rob Smith 17:55, 27 January 2012 (EST)

Religion

Hi Andy, what do you think of this page, wouldn't it be a nice addition for the Religion article?--PhilipN 23:38, 26 January 2012 (EST)

Mr Schlafly, did you have time to have a look at this page ? Please let me know what you think. --PhilipN 23:19, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Category:Speedy deletion candidates

coat of many colours

At last somebody changes the translation of "kethoneth passim" =
"coat of many colours". It's a shameful symbol of gayness and centuries-old
liberal deceits.--EddieM 21:02, 31 January 2012 (EST)

coat of many colours

At last somebody changes the translation of "kethoneth passim" =
"coat of many colours". It's a shameful symbol of gayness and centuries-old
liberal deceits.--EddieM 21:02, 31 January 2012 (EST)

NFL team articles

Thanks for the added privileges, that will make editing a bit easier. While I have your attention, could I get some feedback from you on this matter? I don't want to overhaul a bunch of articles without some endorsement from a contributor with more experience as a part of this community than I. JunoD 00:46, 1 February 2012 (EST)